Reminds me of that scene from Europa Report where the astronaut has to leave the space ship 'cause his space suit is contaminated. Was the trailer sped-up, 'cause the weightlessness seemed pretty fast?

As for Ms. Bullock, I'm not crazy about her, but I'm going more for the director and the story.

Per imdb:, Angelina Jolie was first cast, but dropped out (presumably to have her surgery). Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Natalie Portman, Marion Cotillard, Abbie Cornish, Carey Mulligan, Sienna Miller, Scarlett Johansson, Black Lively, Rebecca Hall and Oliva Wilde were then each tested or approached for the female lead. Robert Downey, Jr. was originally circling what became Clooney's part but dropped out.

\/ something about the rotation speed/\ sandra bollock and george clooney? weird

It kind of seems like maybe someone is not realizing that "weightlessness" is not the same thing as "Everything in space has basically no mass". Both the shuttle and the Hubble or whatever that's supposed to be get to spinning pretty radically with not much of a hit.

Wellon Dowd:Don't we know the orbits of all debris bigger than a quarter? Is there possibly anything up there we don't know about that could do that amount of damage and set the shuttle spinning like that?

Something from a foreign orbit gets caught by Earth gravity and catches some satellite. From the trailer it sounds like they knew debris was inbound because mission control was calling off the walk due to some event.

IdBeCrazyIf:Wellon Dowd: Don't we know the orbits of all debris bigger than a quarter? Is there possibly anything up there we don't know about that could do that amount of damage and set the shuttle spinning like that?

Something from a foreign orbit gets caught by Earth gravity and catches some satellite. From the trailer it sounds like they knew debris was inbound because mission control was calling off the walk due to some event.

Listening to the audio on the trailer site, it sounds like a Russian satellite got hit by a 'missile' of some variety.A new clip of video looks like it will be coming online in ~30 minutes at that site, too.

jayhawk88:escherblacksmith: is it just me or does the physics look waaaaay out of wack?

\/ something about the rotation speed/\ sandra bollock and george clooney? weird

It kind of seems like maybe someone is not realizing that "weightlessness" is not the same thing as "Everything in space has basically no mass". Both the shuttle and the Hubble or whatever that's supposed to be get to spinning pretty radically with not much of a hit.

yeah, that's it, the impact inertia is all hosed. I'll have to work out the math.

The shuttle is weightless in orbit because orbit is freefall around the planet. However, it still has mass. Mass is how much matter is in an object, while weight is how much force that object exerts due to the pull of gravity. This is how you can use rockets and gas jets to move around while in freefall orbit.

Nothing. But it still has mass. And conservation of momentum (the relevant bit of Newtonian mechanics for a collision) would dictate that a smaller mass object hitting a larger mass object doesn't perturb the larger masses motion as much as seems to be indicated in the trailer.

Don't care how good the CGI, or direction, or emoting of actors is - I'm not going to go to a movie and just watch two hours of the inevitable. People bring up Open Water - it IS the same thing (looks like anyway), but at least in Open Water there was the possibility that one of them might get rescued, and it wasn't until the end that you realized that you wasted two+ hours of your life. In this case I think we're all forewarned.

Nothing. But it still has mass. And conservation of momentum (the relevant bit of Newtonian mechanics for a collision) would dictate that a smaller mass object hitting a larger mass object doesn't perturb the larger masses motion as much as seems to be indicated in the trailer.

but doesn't the speed of the smaller object have something to do with that?

Nothing. But it still has mass. And conservation of momentum (the relevant bit of Newtonian mechanics for a collision) would dictate that a smaller mass object hitting a larger mass object doesn't perturb the larger masses motion as much as seems to be indicated in the trailer.

but doesn't the speed of the smaller object have something to do with that?

Relative speed difference along a given vector does yes, but the larger the mass, there is that much less differential. For example, assuming the masses don't combine, and all momentum is transferred:

10 kg mass at 50 m/s hits a 200 kg mass at 0 m/s

you would get a resultant speed of 2.5 m/s (10 * 50 = 200 * 2.5).

This is assuming a perfect/complete transfer of momentum. If you start combining masses, included changes in angular momentum, elasticity and friction, it gets a lot more complicated. For example a smaller sized (not necessarily smaller mass) object is much more likely to hit a larger object off center, Thus more momentum would be transferred to angular momentum.

Been waiting on this one for awhile, already told the gf I need to see it opening night. Rumor has it the opening scene is twenty minutes without a single cut. I still remember the moment I realized during CoM that 4 minutes had passed without one. That may still be more impressive considering no or minimal cgi but we'll see.

thecpt:Been waiting on this one for awhile, already told the gf I need to see it opening night. Rumor has it the opening scene is twenty minutes without a single cut. I still remember the moment I realized during CoM that 4 minutes had passed without one. That may still be more impressive considering no or minimal cgi but we'll see.

Children of Men had easily one of the best long track scenes in cinema history. This one may be good but sadly in the days of CGI its far too easy to get these into film. Before CGI it took some damn impressive movie making skill by all players involved to get these long track one takes.